Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
funny you mention Kayden of all people she knows far less than I do, she asks me for info. As for Matt I dont know who that is.
I can only say that two of the parties directly involved told me that aim has threatened them with legal action if they come forward.
as for aim lying, that is well documented right here aim lied about this from day one then came back and told a half truth.
AIM doesn't need mikesouth.com to make them look bad they are doing an exemplary job on their own.
I know everyone involved and I have made efforts to speak directly with everyone involved, not all agreed to speak but not all didnt.
|
Above, you said "I can only say that two of the parties directly involved told me that aim has threatened them with legal action if they come forward." I know I've asked you this three previous times this weekend, but let dumb dave try it one more time:
Did AIM, per your above wording, "threatened them with legal action if they come forward" mean that AIM itself would be taking the legal action against them; or, was AIM merely counselling them that some other entity could take action against them (like LA Health, or some agency that "polices" violations of the medical disclosure laws)?
It's important to know, Mike ---one is a "threat", while the other is "caring-counseling" and "info-providing".
My question goes to the basics of whether AIM "threatened" or merely provided info --you or somebody has broadcast/reported that AIM "threatened", but per the question I've raised THREE times before this, before I fault AIM in my mind, I personally need to know if you have been announcing a "threat", or could it perhaps have been merely "info"! Please tell us the specifics of what your source told you that journalistically confirmed for you that it was a threat that AIM itself would be the entity to pursue legal action against him.
What do you think about the posting someone made earlier today about the "lie" you are accusing AIM of concerning the victims only previous AIM test date--that poster suggested that the victim might have tested elsewhere, but the test at AIM was her first AIM test (if that comes out being the case, IMO, you'll owe AIM an apology for saying AIM lied--and, some might feel that you also owe us GFY readers an apology for reporting something that was inaccurate?)
There are TWO questions above, Mike---please answer BOTH of them. Thanks.
Prediction---you will soon have a soap-box and be able to again harp like you've done in the past (would that be your personal opinion, or your reporter's role?) and make an issue out of the PCR by DNA test not being (as LA Health Dept told us it WAS, that night at VCAs studio), the best available test for talent.
Dumb Dave, Who is tearing my remaining hair out trying to separate your posting's unbiased "reporting", from your personal shots!